PC and PS4 is all i need
rather spend money on gaming PC than XB1+Wii U

For me it's gaming PC + WiiU! 

I really like the versatility of PCs. PCs do way more than a PS3. In my mind that makes it worth the extra cost, although I still value the games my consoles have to offer.

Valid points, except for two things. Most people don't even own a desktop anymore and have no intention of getting one. Desktop PC sales have declined and will continue to decline year over year. Tablets, laptops, and even smart TVs took over the general uses (surfing the web, streaming movies, emailing, etc.) that desktops used to be bought for. That means that most people who have even a small interest in PC gaming will have to be okay with spending $900-$1200 upfront just to play PC games. And if that person isn't into multi-player games, a console is still their best bet because they don't even have to worry about a yearly fee. Or they'll get a Wii U.

Also, there is a misnomer about Steam sales and Humle Bundle sales. They're great, but to get the higher end games, you're still going to spend about the same or maybe a few dollars less than what you'd spend on consoles. I've found that the big blockbuster games are the exact same price on Steam as they are on consoles, or sometimes they're $10 cheaper. Most people will play the the big blockbuster games immediately and finish them within say a week or two. The difference is that if they do that on PC, they're still stuck with the game. If they do that on consoles, they can trade their games in for about $25-$30 (I'm not exaggerating either) to Gamestop, Best Buy, or Target to get another game. This is because these companies have a higher incentive to sell used games that brand new ones. In that respect, console gaming is more cost effective than PC gaming. Also, now that MS and SONY are offering for sales on their respective networks, even the digital scene is starting to balance out. I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing Humble Bundle sales for console platforms in the near future.

All in all, the points you made are why I got into PC gaming.

Depends on your situation, as some people prefer certain games, for me:

Instead of a gaming PC, i went with a Macbook Air 3 months ago because of the mobility to and from school.

Most PC elitists will laugh at me for going with a Mac, but because of my study i'm on exchange in japan for a year i wanted the slimmest laptop out there.

Now a PC will be outdated during that time, but i can bring my laptop everywhere and decided to dish out the extra money here for a PS4 and bring it back to the Netherlands which is easier to transport :)

This is perfectly fine as the only game i play on my Macbook Air is World of Warcraft and LoL, and these run perfectly fine on High, getting 50fps, and frankly i don't play anything besides PC exclusives on it, and the rest i play on Playstation 3/4.

You can do it the other way around like me, play pc only games on pc, and the rest on consoles.

And frankly, the last desktop i bought was about 12 years ago with an Pentium 4, everything after that was a laptop for school & mobility purposes.

The major factor the OP neglects: most people these days who aren't going to get a dedicated gaming rig will get a laptop or a tablet, which are just about useless for high power gaming. About 2010 a PC tower became a specialized piece of equipment, and by and large a tower is what you need for gaming.

Some people will need to get one, anyway, but certainly not all.

Price-wise, I think PC and consoles are essentially identical. Console games are more expensive, while PC is largely hardware-oriented (but don't forget the time spent installing hardware or tweaking settings). PC gaming definitely offers the higher end experience, but it also comes at a price; glitches, settings not optimized for your hardware, etc.

Personally, I prefer consoles.

If you want to game as well as you can on a console, on a PC throughout the gen, $400/£350 isnt going to do it.
And I've been monitoring humble bundles, its more expensive than PS+.

For example, at the moment, you have to pay $7.96 for bioshock 2, mafia II and spec ops the line, and another $20 for xcom and bioshock infinite. in pounds, that £16.34 which is over 6 months worth of PS+ in which you would get 36 games. Furthermore, on PS+ we had those games when they were newer and cost much more than they do now, which makes it a better deal than this humble bundle. It was the same case with the last big humble bundle which was supposed to be a steal (the EA one).

Now since you havent made a saving, it doesnt make sense that you somehow put those 'savings' towards a GPU upgrade.... and even if you did, it doesnt make sense to go through the effort just to maintain a PC to remain on par with consoles.

"And after that, you will never have to truly rebuy a new PC. Things like the HDD, case, fan, etc. can be reused for a relatively long time, or at least until they get too worn out."
Yeah but if anyone is upgrading RAM, processor, GPU for a new gen, they are not going to use ancient cases and fans.

$200 saving per year.... wow... just wow.
All you have proven is everything that is wrong with the PC's are cost efficient as consoles argument.

Its impossible and the reason its impossible is because when you buy PC parts, theres more intermediaries looking for a cut of the profit, whereas Sony MS and nintendo are mainly in the console business for software revenue. They have no problem selling consoles for no profit, or even at a loss because they can make the money back on software sales. Retailers are also happy to work on low margins because they know the more people that have consoles, the more games they can sell.

PC hardware manufacturers and retailers are not going to sell you cheap stuff because thats what they are built on, and retailers are not going to sell it off cheap expecting people to buy physical PC games from them because hardly anyone does.

Lastly, even if you were able to buy PC components comparable to console parts at the same price, its a well known fact that consoles get far more optimisation throughout the generation than PC hardware does. For companies like Nvidia and AMD, they want to promote how awesome their new GPU's are with specially optimised games which is cool, but a year later, they wont give a damn, they will have moved on.
On the other hand, console manufacturers continuously, until the last game they make, find ways to optimise their games for their machines. Console games get better with time. PC games deteriorate with time.

Wrong. You don't have to pay $7.96 and another $20 if you want all games of the actual bundle.

For $20 (£11.68) you get BioShock 1  + 2 + Infinite, The Darkness 2, XCOM Declassified, XCOM Enemy Unknown, Mafia 2, Spec Ops: The Line and at least 2 other games not announced yet.

For £11.68 you will only get 3 - 4 months PS+, not 6 months... and you can only profit from all of the 18 - 24 games in that timeframe, if you have PS3 + PS4 + Vita. If you only have two of them, you are down to 12 - 16 games, if you only have one system you can play 6 - 8 new games in that timeframe. And you lose access to them if you don't renew the subscription.

I love PS+! Best deal in the console market, especially if you have all 3 systems. But your comparison has some flaws. And most humble bundles are way under $20 to get access to all bundled games.

Is that so? I reused my old PC-case from 2006 when I upgraded the mainboard, RAM and CPU last year. It was still in good condition, so why buy a new one? My HDD, graphic card and Habu mouse also were still in good condition, but I added a SSD and bought a new keyboard. And my old RAM went in the PC of my brother... he was happy for the free minor upgrade.

But only the newer games of a console profit from the optimization and the learning process of the developers.

PC games get better with time: if your PC could handle only medium settings and you play it again some years later with a new graphic card, you can max out the settings or enhance it with mods. Some improvements of the Source engine weren't only used for new games, some older Source games profited from the enhancements as well. The PC version of Trine 1 was upgraded to the enhanced Trine-2-engine for free.

Console games like Halo 3, Uncharted 1 or Mass Effect 1 didn't get better if you played it again in 2013... they stayed the same as they were in 2006/2007 and didn't profit from the enhancements that Halo 4, Uncharted 3 or Mass Effect 3 got on the same hardware.

And yes, a good gaming PC which can keep up the performance of a PS4 for years will cost around the double of a PS4. But that's only factor 2... as I already have shown in this thread, the factor of a decent PC came down from 10x to 2x in the last decades: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=185680&page=10

And if these $400 additional hardware expense pay off due to lower software prices depends of how many games you buy over the years and if you buy them directly at release or later. I myself buy many games, so a PC for multiplatform games already pays off after 1 or 2 years.

You can spend more on a good sized ssd than a console. Yes pc gaming can be less expensive than people think but things can get expensive very quickly if you want nice things. Getting a ton of cheap games is nice but sometimes you end up not even playing a lot of them lol.

Or you can buy a cheaper PC and strictly play older games. Since the PC was up to date in the examples, I was under the impression we were talking strictly up to date PC and consoles. The fact is that cost is usually inversly proportional to age up to a certain point.